- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45731 WP No. 18580 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ WRIT PETITION NO. 18580 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. JAYANNA S/O. LATE GURUMURTHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, OWNER OF WATER TANKER, R/AT ASHOK KHENI LAYOUT, MADAVARA VILLAGE, DASANAPURA HOBLI, BENGALURU - 560 073. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SHIVSHANKER, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HOME AFFAIRS, VIDHAN SOUDHA, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE (DG AND IGP), STATE OF KARNATAKA, NRUPUTHUNGA ROAD, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, Digitally signed by LAKSHMI T Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45731 WP No. 18580 of 2025 HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU 560 - 001. 3. THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU - 560 001. 4. THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE BANGALORE RURAL DISTRICT, CUNNINGHAM ROAD, BENGALURU, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU - 560001. 5. THE POLICE INSPECTOR, MADANAYAKANAHALLI POLICE STATION, BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU - 560 001. 6. DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE, OFFICE OF NELAMANGALA SUB DIVISION, NELAMANGALA - 562 123, REP BY ITS PUBLIC PROSECUTOR, HIGH COURT COMPLEX, BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.M.V.ANOOP KUMAR, HCGP FOR R1) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45731 WP No. 18580 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE MATTER FOR INVESTIGATION TO ANY OTHER HIGHER AUTHORITY LIKE CBI, CID OR ANY OTHER INDEPENDENT AGENCY AND ALSO ISSUE DIRECTION AS THIS HON'BLE COURT AS DEEMS FIT, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY & ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHAMMAD NAWAZ ORAL ORDER Petitioner is the first informant in Crime No.427/2021 of Madanayakanahally police station, Bengaluru District. On his complaint, suspecting the role of six persons in attempting on the life of one Kiran Kumar, case was registered against the said accused for the offence punishable under Sections 120B and 307 read with Section 34 of IPC. The victim by name Kiran Kumar succumbed to the injuries sustained by him. The Investigating Officer during investigation found insufficient materials against the accused named in the FIR, except - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45731 WP No. 18580 of 2025 accused No.5 by name Shwetha. The role of some other accused came to light in committing the offence. Charge sheet was filed for the offences punishable under Sections 143, 147, 148, 341, 302, 109, 120B, 201, 150 read with Section 149 of IPC and Section 3(2) (5) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 against five accused wherein, accused Nos.1, 2, 3 and 5 in the charge sheet were not named as accused in the FIR. 2. It is pertinent to mention that three of the accused, arraigned as accused Nos.1 to 3 and 6 in the FIR are cited as CWs 35 to 37 and CW 39 respectively, in the charge sheet. 3. The petitioner is seeking further investigation by CBI or CID or any other independent agency, as it is contended by the learned counsel that the investigation was not properly conducted in this case and Investigating Officer has deliberately omitted to name the accused - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45731 WP No. 18580 of 2025 Nos.1 to 3, 5 and 6 in the FIR, as accused in the charge sheet. 4. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that there are serious disputes between the accused named in the FIR and the complainant and there are cases registered earlier against them and therefore, instead of filing charge sheet against all the accused named in FIR, the Investigating Officer has filed charge sheet against unconnected persons. Copy of the earlier FIR in Crime No.241/ 2018 and Crime No.86/2015 of Kudur police station are furnished. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied on a decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of 'Neetu Kumar Nagaich vs. The State of Rajasthan and others' reported in [2020] 6 S.C.R. 1015, wherein, it has been held at paragraph No.9 as under:- “9. Normally when an investigation has been concluded and police report submitted under Section 173(2) of the Code, it is only further investigation that - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45731 WP No. 18580 of 2025 can be ordered under Section 173(8) of the Code. But where the constitutional court is satisfied that the investigation has not been conducted in a proper and objective manner, as observed in Kashmeri Devi vs. Delhi Administration, (1988) Suppl. SCC 482, fresh investigation with the help of an independent agency can be considered to secure the ends of justice so that the truth is revealed. The power may also be exercised if the court comes to the conclusion that the investigation has been done in a manner to help someone escape the clutches of the law. In such exceptional circumstances the court may, in order to prevent miscarriage of criminal justice direct de novo investigation as observed in Babubhai vs. State of Gujarat, (2010) 12 SCC 254. A fair investigation is as much a part of a constitutional right guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution as a fair trial, without which the trial will naturally not be fair. The observations in this context in Babubhai (supra) are considered relevant at paragraph 45 as follows: "45. Not only fair trial but fair investigation is also part of constitutional rights guaranteed under Articles 20 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, investigation must be fair, transparent and judicious as it is the minimum requirement of rule of law. The investigating agency cannot be permitted to conduct an investigation in a tainted and biased manner. Where non-interference of the court would ultimately result in failure of justice, the court must interfere. In such a situation, it may be in - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45731 WP No. 18580 of 2025 the interest of justice that independent agency chosen by the High Court makes a fresh investigation." 6. Before referring to the two previous FIRs relied by the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is relevant to consider the complaint averments. As could be seen, the first informant is not an eye witness to the incident in question. It is his case that on 05.09.2021 at about 7.00 a.m., his son deceased Kiran Kumar came to the house in a Car and to go to the welding shop, he took the plywood and iron pipes. At about 7.45 a.m., on hearing his screams, when complainant's wife ran towards the spot, she saw Kiran Kumar with bleeding injuries and in an unconscious state. Immediately, he was shifted to the hospital. 7. The first informant has suspected the role of the accused named in the FIR as there was some dispute with regard to ancestral properties and cases were registered earlier and certain quarrel had taken place about 20 days prior. Hence, it is clear from the complaint averments - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45731 WP No. 18580 of 2025 that, only on account of some cases registered earlier and in view of a quarrel which took place about 20 days prior, the first informant has suspected the role of the accused named in the FIR. Except that, there are no other materials which are forth coming to name the said accused. 8. A perusal of the two FIRs, which the learned counsel has relied upon, goes to show that said FIRs were registered not only against the accused named in the FIRs but also against other family members in respect of an incident which took place on 03.03.2015 and another on 10.09.2018. It is not the case of the petitioner that subsequent to those FIRs, any other cases are registered against the accused named in the present FIR. 9. Learned HCGP has contended that there are two eye witnesses to the incident, CWs-14 and 16 namely, Uma Shankar and Salauddin and the Investigating Officer after conducting a thorough investigation has filed the charge sheet against the culprits. He contended that - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45731 WP No. 18580 of 2025 against accused Nos.1 to 3, 5 and 6 named in the FIR, no materials are found and therefore, the charge sheet was not filed against them and further submits that accused Nos.1 to 3 and 6 named in the FIR are cited as CWs 35 to 37 and 39 in the charge sheet. 10. It is also relevant to mention that a W.P.No.18912/2023 was filed by the petitioner/de-facto complainant before this Court seeking a direction to consider the representations submitted to respondent Nos.2 to 4 therein, i.e., the Director General and Inspector General of Police (DG and IGP), the Superintendent of Police, Bengaluru Rural District and the Deputy Director Superintendent of Police, Bengaluru Rural District. The said representations were given to conduct a re- investigation. 11. This Court while disposing of the said writ petition vide order dated 27.02.2025 directed the respondents to address the grievance of the petitioner and - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:45731 WP No. 18580 of 2025 consider his representations and pass appropriate orders/take appropriate steps in accordance with law. 12. The said representations were in fact considered and endorsement was also given vide Annexure - E. 13. No grounds are made out to allow the petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Sd/- (MOHAMMAD NAWAZ) JUDGE MH/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 26